Liancourt in France

{editprotected} As a part of a project to create articles for all communes of France, I have just created Liancourt, Oise. I would like to link to that from this article, for instance {{Redirect|Liancourt|the town in France|Liancourt, Oise}}. Another option could be to move "Liancourt, Oise" to "Liancourt" (currently a redirect to "Liancourt Rocks", also protected) and create a dablink from there to Liancourt Rocks. MarkussepTalk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good job for creating the French town page. I'd say, since the town is actually "Liancourt", and the rocks are never called "Liancourt" alone but always "Liancourt Rocks", there should be no objection to having the town at the simple title. Let's have a quick check if there are links to it that need changed. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All incoming links to Liancourt already were to the French village, not the islands. I've therefore redirected Liancourt to Liancourt, Oise as requested. If you want to move Liancourt, Oise to Liancourt simple (depends on what the preferred format is for French villages?), give me a call, you'll need an admin for that. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are no other places with the same name, the preferred format is the simple name, without the department. Could you move it there? I'll add a dablink later. Thanks. MarkussepTalk 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't actually see much of a need for a dablink on either side, personally. It doesn't seem to have ever been a problem. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dokdo from KPOV

If one doesn't believe the inclusion of Dokdo from Ulleungdo(Sp?) and the Korean claims from the Silla times, please read below...

"Furthermore, Korean Government took necessary legal and administrative actions to meet even the elements of the modern international law in the appropriate process of acquiring land, and published the actions by the Official Gazette issued by the Central Government on October 25, 1900, five years earlier than the ineffective action by a Japanese Province of Shimaneken Publish Notice No. 40 dated Feb 28, 1905.

Subject : To name the "Ullundo Island" as Ulldo Island and reform the title of the Island administrator from the "Supervisor" to the Chief of the Country.

Article 1 : Ullundo Island is hereby renamed as "Ulldo Island" and annexed to Kangwondo Province. The title of the Supervisor of the Island is reformed as the chief of the county and is hereby included in the Central Government Organization as the Rank of Class 5.

Article 2 : The location of the country building is settled at Daeha-dong and the scope of the jurisdiction of the county covers all the Ullungdo area, Jukdo Island and "the Rocks Islets"(i.e. the Dokdo Islets).

Article 3 : ...............................

Article 4 : County budget is to be kept to the level of the Rank of Class 5. As the budget is insufficient in the inchoate period of time and there must be a variety of issues to be settled, supplement necessary expenses directly from the taxes collected from the Island.

Article 5 : As to other items, take appropriate actions in accordance with progress of its development.

King Kwangmu Reign 4th year October 25.

(Sealed by His Majesty)

Cabinet (acting) Secretary, Home Affairs Minister Lee Kun Ha

Implementation Order.

Reading the Rescript, attention is invited to the name of the "Rocks Islets" that fell in the jurisdiction of Chief of the County Ulldo Island by the provision of the Article 2. The name "Rocks Islets(石島)" is the very "Liancourt Rocks" which is one of many names aforementioned for it. For the "Rocks Islets", for example, there are two means of writing in accordance with the Korean way of expression, by either "Dokdo Islets" or "Sukdo Islets" because the Korean has two letters for "Rocks", one is "Dok" and the other, "Suk". There are some examples for the name "Rocks" still in practical usage of the two ways at present in mainland of Korea.44))

The Dokdo Islets are a part of Korean territory on the ground of early historical record(Since A.D 512), and also, the Rescript verifies the fact that the Royal Korean Government at the time has taken proper actions for the sovereignty over "The Dokdo Islets" even in light of the modern international law as already shown."

Please visit the site for more evidence of that Korea does in fact own soverignty over the islands against Japan's claim from 1905. As for me, if one can disprove the document which also listed it's sources then I'll join the JPOV.

Gosh, you're already blocked by admin, Fut. Perf without any legitimate process like ANI, RFCU, or SSP because you left the above note once and look just suspicious? This is out of WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK. --Appletrees (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"New rules of conduct", point 4, in line with ArbCom which enforces those policies. What can I say, except "Fut.Perf. don't fuck around!" :) Orethrius (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The islets are known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally solitary island) in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima? , literally bamboo island) in Japanese. The English name Liancourt Rocks is derived from Le Liancourt, the name of the French whaling ship whose crew were the first Europeans to encounter and chart the islets in 1849.

I'm not quite sure ewhat point you are making here. Possible you can explain further? If you check the archives the subject of the article lead has been discussed to death. The name is what the rocks are called in English and we are not going to favour one side or the other in this dispute by favouring one name over the other. Liancort Rocks may not be the idea name for the article but its certainly the most acceptable to everyone and both sets of names have redirects here. SpartazHumbug! 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Caomengde was merely asking to have the Japanese cited also in its Kana form (たけしま) in addition to the Kanji (竹島). Nothing about the article title. Seems unproblematic to me, but I don't know what our conventions are for Japanese names. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any specific mentions in the naming conventions but I can tell you it's def not conventional on English wikipedia to annotate Japanese terms with transliterations in hiragana, unless the hiragana form is in common usage in Japanese.Phonemonkey (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Except for rare cases such as indicating the pronunciation—which should be obvious to anyone who has any experience reading Japanese—the kana form of the name is never used to refer to the islands. The kana should not be included in the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This islet should be re-name to Dokdo or Tokdo considering it's South Korea now controlls the islets, Liancourt Rocks was the named by French explorer and since then no one lived on this islets other than Koreans have included as their territory since Silla period. Takeshima is recent named by Japanese during Japanese take over of Korea, so it should be / rightfully re-name to Korean name "Dokdo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A Historical Inaccuracy on This Page

Your article on Liancourt Rocks reads as follows. "..Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate..."

Actually, it should read "...Japan annexed the islands about a year after her military occupied Korea as a protectorate..."

Japanese forces landed in Chemulpo (Incheon) on February 8th 1904. Her soldiers marched into Seoul and after weeks of intimidation Korea signed the Japan~Korea Protocol on Feburary 26th 1904, which "allowed" the Japanese military to appropriate Korean land deemed of military strategic value.

Here is the link to the document, from the 1904 American Foreign Affairs archives. Please see Article IV paragraph two.

Probably, that is one interpretation of the history. However, mainstream interpretation of history is that Korea became a Japanese protectorate in 1905, as mentioned in the article Korea under Japanese rule. (Read "On the road to annexation" section in that article.) For the consistency within Wikipedia, I propose to keep the current form of wording. Or it is also possible to change the contents of the both articles.--Kamuichikap (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

what means dokdo?

The meaning in the article is derived according to the hanja (獨島); I can’t speak for whether this is correct (I may beKorean, but I don’t know Korean). Moreover, wikt:독 does not list or link to any meaning of “stone”. The reading with “stone” that I can find is Seokdo (石島), but the precise meaning of that (i.e. whether it is a name Seokdo or a descriptor of “rocky islands”) is, like nearly everything about these rocks, disputed. -BRPXQZME (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some Korean call Dok(독) instead of Dol(돌), both mean stone. But these daysin this context, I suppose nobody thinks Dokdo comes from a stone island. It means lonely island. --Cheol (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I found that Sept. 25, 1900(Gojong 38 ) when Joseon set aside Uleungdo as a county, they mentioned about Stone island. some Koreans think the Stone island is Dokdo, the rocks. So 石島 is not unrelated to 獨島. --Cheol (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User Warned to Comply with Terms of Engagement

I have just warned User:Logitech95 of the terms of engagement after an undiscussed blind revert to the article. Further disruptive edits may result in sanctions with no further warning required. SpartazHumbug! 09:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Claim is not accurate & Pls add Rusk Letter

The Japanese's claim Silla's record only indicate Ulleung Island about 200miles far away from Takeshima. Takeshima belongs to Hoki country from Edo era.

United Nation GHQ agreement draft

However, the Koreans have rejected this claim by arguing that the Japanese claim over the islets was the first step towards Japan's eventual claim over the rest of Korea. Korea was then forced to become a Japanese protectorate in 1905 after King Kojong was forced to abdicate his throne.

In August 1951,South Korea requested US let Japan give up Dokto/Takeshima,but US secretary of states David Dean Rusk reserch the historical dispute and rejected South Korea's Request by Rusk Letter2P.1P2P3P4P

In January 1952, South Korea's Syngman Rhee line declaration included Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory. Since September 1954, Japan has proposed adjudicating this problem in the International Court of Justice but South Korea has both refused to accept this proposal or to acknowledge the dispute, likely based on various grounds.[1] North Korea supports the South Korean claim as is often expressed through their KCNA news organ.

2008 South Korea Gov suddenly complained to Japanese Gov to Deliet the article of Takeshima/Dokt despute from Japanese History/Geography Text Book (But South Korea's Text book Clearly describe Dokto Blongs to SK) Japanese Gov orderd moderate of their Textbook but SK shut down their Japan embassy.--Jack330 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation on your first edit on English Wikipdia. Not surprisingly, yours is exactly the same insistence by Opp2 and his friends Watermint, Forstfarmer and Jjok. I've already seen the same thing from their wonderful secret meetings at ja.Wikipedia, which only misses the latest news part. The image of Rusk document with the read line was uploaded by Watermint. How amusing.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, could someone sum this up in a less acerbic and clearer manner? 222.106.151.163 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Good friend100 when I visit your page I awared you are a Korean. If you don't mind please inform me why you think so--Jack330 (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack330, you seem to be confusing the legal basis of the Rusk Documents. They are simply a negotiating position prior to the San Francisco Treaty. And because of this, they have little bearing on the eventual outcome of the status of Liancourt Rocks. Dean Rusk essentially was stating that (he 'thought') the rocks were Japanese territory, and therefore the SF treaty did not need to deal with their status. So they are less relevant than they appear. I do hope that Japanese wikipedia does not parrot the line "In Dec 1949 United Nation's GHQ decided Takashima belongs to Japan" because the Rusk Documents are just that: documents. They are not legal agreements. Macgruder (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Biases in Referrences

Most of current references stands on Korean view and redundant. I recommend to elminate some part of these and at least we should add Japan's official issue below.

Discussion of personal opinions deleted. This page is not for exchanging opinions of which country is in the right. Just everybody stop it. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to insist one side. Just try to depict diffrence of stance. Liancourt Rocks are just same as other thoudands of offshore rocks which nobody cares, if it was not in international dispute. So issue from both side should be center topic for informative encycropedia.

Looking at current small international dispute section and biased reference section, I cannot understand how Fut.Perf think the form of this article should be, especially from "Neautral point of view". I think we should have both side of outline issue. (Paldochongdo topic should be one of that, which you deleted.) Lssrt (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The current short section on the dispute is the way it is because it had previously grown huge and chaotic and totally unreadable while Japanese and Korean nationalists were forever fighting over it, so one day we decided to throw the whole lot out and reduce it to a short stub. It's certainly far from perfect, but it will remain so as long as the only people interested in rewriting it are again people with either a Japanese or Korean agenda. With these people around, there is no hope of ever getting a decent article written.

Since you yourself obviously also have an agenda like that, I'm sorry but I have to include you in that category.

As for the "biased" references, the only things where Korean references are currently predominant seem to be the sections dealing with the physical characteristics of the islands. I have no idea why you would care whether the information that the water around the islands is 10 degrees Celsius in spring is sourced to a Korean or Japanese website? Fut.Perf.☼ 12:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not care where sources come from. For example, Ref7and10 is clear propaganda, and Ref4 completely neglects that Japan claims that Korea's 'Administration' is illegal occupation, and so on.

Anyway, at least I and the guy you deleted agreed to write the article in both way. There is no need to fight with each other. Just to have both outline issues is enough, if predominant editor prefers. Thanks Lssrt (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegal occupation? and propaganda? To me, the Japanese website you insist to use is a completely political propaganda like this. This measure taken by the ROK constituted illegal drawing of lines on the high seas, --> Perfect propaganda. To South Korea's stance, Japanese government's persistent insistence is illegal and breaches the sovereignity of South Korea. Like many controversies caused by Japan on history textbooks as doing distorting historical facts, that is not the first time we've seen. Besides, Fut is not the only one who you should get an agreement. You must get a consensus from opponents or at least compromise. Unless a consensus reaches, you're insistence is just one POV to be not considered highly. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down and don't determine I am your opponent. Legality is determined by each law. "Which is right" is not matter to make consensus. It seems impossible. Instead, I just say neglecting the existence of otherside's clamin is a problem for encycropedia. I pointed out that some Korean sources totally lack it. I don't want to say my suggested link is very neutral, but it is rather academically written and contains a lot of Korean view in detail.Lssrt (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Which is right" is not matter to make consensus. It seems impossible. I only agree with this sentence. However your claim is overall contradictory to the statement. If you want to talk calmly with the other party, you would better refrain from using inflammatory languages such as the above mentioned words: propaganda, biased, illegal, etc. Do not expect these languages are viewed as calm and logical from the other party. I don't see the Japanese link is academically acknowledged claims by the world. That reflects only Japanese POV. Please do not start edit warring or tendentious bickering.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will use more carefully these words. And again I repeat that the point is negligence(or ignorance) to the other sides. It is inappropriate for encychopedia. Do you agree on it? Or, is there any reliable source written in English which correctly and comprehensively contain both POV in detail? (I did not say mine is "academically acknowledged", but "rather academically".) Thanks. Lssrt (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I grant you that some of the websites used as references fall short of the requirements of reliability, and even though that probably doesn't affect the correctness of the mere geographical facts we're basing on them, it would be better to get rid of these refs because of their propagandistic perspective. Valid point. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that geography is required for the article, but I believe main point still exists in the international dispute section, where we should firmly keep neutral point of view, along with referrence section.

Ok, then I simply propose to add my suggested link as a footnote to the words "while the japanese side" in international dispute section.

Although it explains Japan's standpoint, it contains a lot of answer to common Korean view and it will help people to understand how both views are differ in detail. Adding it will also make some balance in current referrence section. Thanks. Lssrt (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before Korea became Japan's protectorate.

This sentence is rather inaccurate and conflicts with another post on wikipedia.

Japan incorporated the islands just a few years before they occupied Korea in 1910. After Japanese troops were forced out in 1945 and Korea regained its independence - the islands is part of that as well. Korea has controlled the islands for 50 years and to raise the issue that the islands belong to Japan is silly. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aDi.oz3fJEGg&refer=japan

The issue is not about pre-modern territorial disputes. The issue is about the islands that were effectively part of Korea throughout history until Korea was forcibly occupied by Japan and now there is a lot of backtracking as to why it was historically already Japan's. From a recent report: South Korea is sensitive about the islands, which were the first Korean territory to be annexed by Japan in 1905, presaging colonial conquest. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/japan-korea-renew-isles-row/2006/04/19/1145344155568.html

Also, to say that Korea was Japan's protectorate is extremely insulting to Koreans. It is as if you are saying that various European countries were protectorates of Nazi Germany.

Please change the phrased that Korea was forcibly annexed by Japan as it states on the Korea page. "In 1910, Korea was forcibly annexed by Japan and remained occupied until the end of World War II in August 1945."

citizendium

someone anoymously emailed me to post this link about the liancourt rocks. The site looks like a complete copy of wikipedia to me. And he wanted me to tell people at wikipedia to also check the talk page of the article, link posted below.

I have nothing to do with any of this please dont start up on me. Good friend100 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this link is supposed to show? Yeah, great, so Citizendium also has an article on it, and it was apparently written entirely by a Korean contributor, who predictably chose the Korean name as an article title. Their choice. The only interesting thing is they have something that purports to be a free photograph, and a nice one at that. Unfortunately, I couldn't verify that the photograph was in fact from the photo album site it said it was from (it seems no longer to be in that collection), otherwise I'd have copied it over. Somebody want to check further? Fut.Perf.☼ 09:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel rather uneasy about the recent large additions to the dispute section by Lexico (talk·contribs). These seem all directly sourced only to the primary sources in question. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. We need a reliable, neutral secondary source in the form of a modern historian's treatment discussing the significance of these documents, not just a list of the documents sourced only to themselves.

Uncontrolled growth of this section on the basis of primary sources was one of the main causes of the chaos we had in this article last year, so I call for a thorough review and, if necessary, removal of these sections. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Removal of Subsections in "International disputes"

The text in the "International disputes" prior to my contribution began with the title "WWII" but mentioned the 1905 inclusion, which does not adequately address the details of the hows and the whys of the dispute, and was highly illogical. Not only does the 1905 Japanese incorporation occur more than three decades before the outbreak of the Lugouqiao Incident of 1937 that marked the Asian chapter of WWII, but the strong reaction in the Korean government regarding "Liancourt Rocks" becomes unintelligible without the 1900 Imperial Decree with which the 1905 incorporation comes into direct conflict as a matter of logic. So the rhetorical question to follow would be, "How would a wikipedia article address the 'dispute' without these two governmental documents that clashed head on?"

Your request to check the tendency of the "disputes section" to grow out of control is admirable, yet that should not equate to the removal of the subsections "1900" and "1905" dealing with these two pivotal historical documents. In such a case, I believe it is by far better policy to simply remove the "International disputes" section altogether as superficiality would be otherwise inevitable as a result.

In a way, I agree with the minimalist approach; nevertheless the "1877 Daijo-kan" subsection was a well thought out addition as that is also an important governmental document that has more than an insignificant bearing on the subject. Although I did not create it, I fully approve of the decision and clarity given in the subsection. As for Japan's MOFA claim that "another island is not Liancourt Rocks" (which was inaccurately ascribed to me in Lexico (talk·contribs)), I am not fully aware of the details, and will offer my input if I can verify a reliable source that is traceable to the original document.

As for the inclusion of the two original documents, they are in the public domain. Hence I disagree with your comment "just a list of the documents sourced only to themselves". Anyone who has researched the subject with any intellectual integrity couldn't possibly have missed what documents are the smoking guns. But like I said in a previous response, I omitted the web source as it was not in English, not becuase I was bent on monopolising the sources. What mattered to me most was that a legibly clear image in the public domain was available. My suggestion would be to google for images with the identifying key words; they are readily available to anyone as they are to me provided we spoke the same set of languages. Lex (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't questioning the inclusion on copyright grounds. It's a matter of "No Original Research" We cannot rely on your knowledge and judgment or that of anybody else who has "researched the subject with any intellectual integrity" (and mind you, I am by no means doubting yours) – we need the judgment of published professional historians, preferably neutral ones. So, where did you read about those documents? Fut.Perf.☼ 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about copyrights? Furthermore, your reference to the so-called "No Original Research" is quite off the mark. Please point to relevant sections where you consider them "Original research" with exact quotations. Give specific reasons and details supporting your allegations of "original research" when you do. Lex (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No "allegations", no "accusations". I just noted that your paragraphs aren't sourced. They have references to the primary documents, but they lack references to a reliable secondary source explaining to us what these documents mean. Really, I totally respect your knowledge of these issues and all that, but still, you need to base these paragraphs on published literature, explicitly. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I feel largely responsible for the current situation in the subsection "International disputes", and I agree with the removal of the whole subsection, as Lexico (talk·contribs) proposed. There is no way to converge and stabilize the description of that section considering its nature. --Kamuichikap (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE

WP:CITE Policy Duely noted

I shall cite web whenever I can find a website in English with comparable image quality. Currently I have enough trouble locating any image file that is reasonably legible, and finding one in an English web page multiplies the difficulty, but I shall give an honest effort to comply. Lex (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

Also, can we please cut back on the Recentism? This is an encyclopedia article, which should contain only information that will retain its significance and usefulness over the years. The details of daily news reporting don't belong here. Gory details of pheasant-slaughtering and all that. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted part of the paragraph about the pheasent killing, it was plagirized and some of the other parts are bordering plagiriazation as well. Good friend100 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the pheasant-killing was recent, but it is also certainly relevant. The intially plagiarized paragraph was re-written in paraphrased form and properly cited. I think the gory details of pheasant-slaughtering show the amount of anger in ROK related to this issue, and as such will retain its significance and usefulness over the years. This dispute smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not for the article. This article does not have much details on every claim or news. Japan-Korea disputes would fit for your contribution.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the wikipedia would describe 'the amount of anger' which cannot be measured. Jtm71 (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Blind revert to waaaay back

Somebody dropped by and blindly reverted the whole dispute section to one of the hugely overblown, chaotic versions of last year, without even an attempt of discussion. This is totally unacceptable. That old article was stubbed back for a very good reason. It was terribly written, rambling, unstructured, with POV wholes gaping everywhere. I'll revert it tomorrow. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By experiencing that reverting back is repeated often, I think Korean and Japanese have their own claims which seem not possible to make a consensus. I suggest to write an FAQ which lists frequent claims and the WP's consensus on those, in order to let them know we recognized the issues. I hope the FAQ could prevent often reverting back. --Cheol (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Historiographer, I noticed you added a wealth of historical material in the article on "Liancourt Rocks". While I admire the effort you put in, and admit that certain parts of it are quite true or at least deserving of serious attention, I am not quite sure if the majority should be included as the main text of the article. Quantitywise, the article length jumped from ca. 25 k to ca. 80 k just overnight, a threefold increase mostly from your input. That comes as a rather mild shock to one who has poured much care into every single word and addition making sure any addition would withstand the test of time. Some of the words you added are not properly suppported such as the following.

Quote "The Three Kingdoms period // In 1145, Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of Three Kingdoms) recorded that the state of Usan (Usan-guk), an island kingdom located on Ulleung-do, was conquered and "re-integrated" into Silla."

Comment on relevance : How is the history-geography of Ulleung Is. relevant to that of Liancourt Rocks? The assumption needs to be stated explicitly no matter how plausible or intutive it might seem as there will be others from a neutral POV who do not readily subscribe to that view. For instance, your assumption could partially have been based on the archaeological evidence of whalers depicted on petroglyphs in Bangudae, Ulju, (Bangudae Petroglyphs 울산 대곡리 반구대 암각화) that could suggest either Ulleung Is. and Liancourt Rocks had been within easy reach of the "Proto-Sillan" whalers of the late-neolithic to early bronze-age dwellers of present-day Ulsan, South Gyeongsang Province, but the actual analysis and interpretation of the archeological evidence has yet to be conducted and published in order to have any historical significance. In other words, the jump from physical geography to human geography, and that from archaeology-anthropology to history, do not come without labour in the form of a well-conducted, well-documented, critical study that shows the degree of certainty of the idea you wish to employ if indeed that were your intention.

Comment on historiographical accuracy : I am not certain at all as to what you might have meant by "island kingdom located on Ulleung-do" being "'re-integrated' into Silla." Had the island kingdom ever been part of Silla before the conquest of 512 CE? I am not aware of any study claiming that. Are you assuming the Silla-style pottery and other archeological finds unearthed on Ulleung Island dated to the 4th century is evidence that

(1) Silla had control over Ulleung Island before 512, that

(2) Ulleung Island had been a Silla colony, that

(3) colonialists on Ulleung Island of Silla origin had revolted some time before the 512 conquest, and that

(4) Silla had simply reclaimed its former colony in 512?

While I admit the possibility all of these being historical truths, three requirements must be met before you can make that claim.

A. hypothesis : an historian has proposed the possibilities of (1) through (4)

B. evidence : an historian has presented further evidence and reasoning to back up the claim of the hypothesis, which now becomes a "theory" for peer review

C. reference : you need to include at least the essence of the "theory" and also attribute the theory with the study in which it was published

In the absence of A, B, or C, we need to stay conservative; otherwise it becomes your Original Research that needs to be avoided as article material. (interesting theory by the way if one existed)

Another thing I've noticed is that an administrator considers your addition as a revert to last year's article. Although I am not certain if that is the case as I was not here when that happened, (s)he also announced that your additions will be undone. May I suggest you undo your recent additions and add a small quantity of material at a time so that other editors can have a chance to discuss and participate in improving the article as a whole? It looks highly likely that your additions will be axed anyway; it would be far better to police oneself than being censored by an organisational authority. Please take the necessary measures without delay. Hope to see your contributions in a more constructive light. Lex (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

edit: In view of the fact that an article on An, Yong Bok, in English does not exist, I have taken the liberty of creating a new article with the material that you supplied. My main reason was that there are simply too many details than would be deemed appropriate for the average viewer. The subsection of "The An, Yong Bok, Incident" is in serious need of a compressing down to the essence, leaving only a link to the minute details and whole exceprpts from original documents. I have not changed any text about An, Yong Bok, here or in the new article excluding formatting, linking, and romanisation matters. Lex (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Hague Secret Emissary Affair

In the "International dispute" section, which is ironically under a great dispute right now, it is written that Emperor Gojong sent emissaries to Hague to dispute the incorporation (of Liancourt Rocks by Japan, I guess). However, as far as I know, the mission of emissaries was to declare the invalidity of the Eulsa Treaty. Is there any source that shows that the emissaries also tried to complain about the issue of Liancourt Rocks at Hague? --Kamuichikap (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

deleted. It is not in accord with the fact. Jtm71 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I know that why the title of this article became 'Liancourt Rocks' is not because it was the first name given, but because the naming dispute which was not desirable. The description about the name can induce misinterpretation while both side argue that the island was known far before 1849. Isn't it desirable to add short mention of the naming dispute and the poll which happended ? Jtm71 (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lexico's recent edits

I really mind editing this article, however, the recent editions by User:Lexico makes me worry for not only his introducing incorrect information (now deleted Hague Secret Emissary Affair) but also his editing habit. I don't know what background you have since you appear to be a new editor. I think you should read the rules in the green box on the talk page. You also seem to ignore the common guideline of WP:Quote and WP:V. You must not repeat the same contents in the quote secession in the tree languages : English, Korean, Japanese since here is "English Wikipedia". If there is no English source, foreign language sources are accepted as inline citations, however the site (http://www.mofa.go.jp/ ) provides English document, so your repeating the same content not only is redundant but also looks like promoting the site and content.

Besides, you should not use "unreliable sites". The current inline ref 17, 18 do seem to be as such. Moreover, you have to discuss things before you insert "large chunk of information" to the article. --Caspian blue (talk)

Your comments are welll noted regarding language matters. Nevertheless you can not call my connecting the Hauge Secret Emissay Affair with the Laincourt Rock issue "incorrect" information for the following reasons:

1. Shimane notice had not appeared in any international medium of wide notice as claimed by MOFA

2. The Korean government, County of Uldo, Shim, Heung Taek, learned of the "Incorporation" on Mar 28, 1906, which occurred only after the Protectorate Treaty of Nov 18, 1905, by the time of which all legitimate representation had been blocked.

3. Although it could be argued whether Gojong's secret letters sent to Germany in 1906 and the Hague in 1907 expressly included objections to the 1905 occupation of Liancourt Rocks verbatim, it follows from Imperial Decree No. 41 that Gojong's appeal to the west European nations included that of Liancourt Rocks as well as the rest of his soverign territory. This is not original research, as it is a result of a simple, straightforward application of deductive reasoning. I could quote an historian's POV if that is what is required to make my "correct information" legitimate given enough time to dig up the sources.

I shall come back for more explaining, but let my add that I have not reverted in regard to the policies stated here, not because I agreed with your allegations of "incorrectness".

As for ref 17, and 18, I do not need all the annotations and interpretations there. What matters is that these are official governmental documents over a century old that are listed with transliterations for all to see. These are official documents that have been released to the public, so anyone can read it. If the transliteration service is a recurring problem with you (Do you find them incorrect in any way? I have corrected one misreading, but what issue do you raise with the transliteration from image to text file?) or any other contributor, I shall dig up some other slick looking site with the same text or simply link to the Japanese archives direct, although viewers including you would have to browse around on a Japanese page with a cryptic proprietary viewer opted by the governmental offices of Japan. If you have any concrete evidence that site in ref 17, 18 is unreliable, please offer concrete evidence and/or reasoning why you deem it so. Lex (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to read carefully what I said. I said "you should not use "unreliable sites". I don't believe these two are "credible sites" like government sites, museums, media with credentials, books, academic sources and so forth.

Besides, your deduction still looks like "original research" to several people including me because you're not a historian or expert with credibility. So we're using those credible sources for proving each claim. How do we believe that your interpretation is correct? --Caspian blue (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In reponse to your request, and the wiki guidelines which I have fallen short of, I shall find image files published by a more respectable and publically recognised author(s). I do not expect the current images provided any less credible than what I shall replace them with, but I shall comply if that helps you and your colleagues to have greater faith in the relevant historical data.

As for your second complaint, I shall either find a more presentable source other than my application of fundamental logic; it is partialy mea culpa for not making it readily visible to you and your colleagues whoever they might be. I appreciate your care in pointing out this tragic flaw in my presentation of a fact that might not seem so obvious to the general public as well as my fellow wikipedians. I realise one must keep learning, and your comments have done me a great service in that regard; I genuinely thank you for offering me this opportunity to improve myself and, hopefully, the article the compliation of which I have taken an interest in. And that, I must add, comes without a speck of sarcasm of any sort. Lex (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Credibility issues are stated in the bibliographical in notes of the end notes in the references list, so I shall not repeat identical message. One question for you; why is there not a seprate end note section; should we not have one so the reference list is not cluttered with supplementary information?

Although they all derive from the same originals in possession of Japan's National Archives 国立公文書館 (anyone should be able to look them up by searching with key "竹島" at http://www.jacar.go.jp/DAS/meta/MetaOutServlet which gives you document code A07060000300 at the top of the stack of 306 matches; 日本海内竹島外一島地籍ニ編纂方伺 consisting of 20 images), the latter images are secondary coming via a photocopy of a Japanese scholar's publication (Hori Kazuo's as far as I know), and has poorer image quality as such, while the so-called "less credible" images appear to be more recent ones, but primary digitised images with both higher resolution and bigger dimensions tbat is easier on the eyes from my POV. But that's just me; let the general public suffer from poorer images, and perhaps they do not deserve any better? I'll be back for more clean up even if it means downgrading other images as well, but what can I do? Policy is policy. O, I shall be gone for a couple of days, so please bear with me. Lex (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

adding reference

I do not know why the reference was requested. While the relation of the island and the name was well known, I think the user needed more than that. Anyone but a historian can misjudge(or mislead) the historical fact, moreover, the event happened 160 years ago. Jtm71 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

terra nullius

1905 Japanese Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40

[...}Japan claims the incorporation was valid on grounds that Liancourt Rocks was terra nullius and that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published.[...}

I want to see when Japan said terra nullius.--Opp2 (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Opp2. The info regarding Japan's claim for terra nullius (nobody's island) on the islets can be seen these credible sources [2][3] although I did not read the whole content except the mention about terra nullius. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you do. However, a Prof. Park who is a Korean sholar of law says follows in his thesis.[4]

These coexisting theories(Japanese government and Prof. Daijyudo) consider that Japan reconfirmed her will of owning as a modern state by the incorporation. (これら両立論は、日本による竹島/独島編入措置の法的意義を「近代国家として竹島を領有する意志を再確認したもの」とするか（日本政府）)

It is logically possible in intertnational law that Japan does additional action same as title by occupation.(日本が先占のような追加措置をとることは、近代国際法の観点からみると論理的に可能)

He never say the insistence of Japan is terra nullius. His credible thesis contradicts your ?credible? sources. And then, I want to confirm the specific source that Japanese Government said terra nullius. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. did you even read or check them? I don't know how credible??? your source would be. But you demand sources here, so I presented to you. That's it. Then if you want to discuss on the nobody's island theory, then feel free to do so with other people since I'm not much into the article. Bye.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Check '無人島' in the article(pdf) which japanese government distributed. Jtm71 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Off cource, I checked it.

*Sean Fern:The Japanese claim to have incorporated Liancourt – land they considered to be terra nullius – into Shimane Prefecture on February 22, 1905.

He is not presenting his source about terra nullius of his interpretation. When did Japan consider to be terra nullius?

*Korea.net:Furthermore, Japan initially insisted that it was establishing sovereignty over terra nullius (no man's land) when it took the measures in 1905, but it later said that it reaffirmed its intention to take possession of Takeshima.

Korea.net is not presenting his source about Japanese claim terra nullius too.

Korea.net and Sean Fern are not presented there source. Their insistences contradict Prof.Park. And, I want to confirm. When did Japan say terra nullius?--Opp2 (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My academic source is not interpreted as terra nullius incorporation. Therefore, I want to verify. 1905??? Is it a document of the Japanese cabinet decision in 1905? The document of the Japanese cabinet decision doesn't write such a thing. Your academic source silent about her source about Japanese clam. When did Japan say terra nullius? --Opp2 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To Jtm71
The meaning of terra nullius is not "no man land" but is "a territory not belong to any particular country(BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY)." Terra nullius is not "無人島" but is "無主地" in Japanese.--Opp2 (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you checked, then read the document carefully. (refer to [5]) Jtm71 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To Caspian blue
Prof. Park is not interpreting the claim of Japan as the incorporation of terra nullius. Sources of Japanese claim that he is using is as follows.

Internet site of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Diplomatic document that Japan sent South Korea on July 13, 1962.

I confirmed that Japan did not say terra nullius in the diplomatic document on July 13, 1962. I also confirmed that Japan did not say terra nullius in the Japanese diplomatic document to Korea on July 13,1953 and so on. When did Japan say "terra nullius"? I cannot verify which is correct, because Sean Fern's thesis never mention about his sources of Japanese claim which must say as a terra nullius.(his reference is describe only as "molvo") --Opp2 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't start all the same tendentious argument. You really don't need to talk to me regarding your interpretation on Prf. Park's theory because I'm not that interested in your argument and this article. (I want peace) You can contact Sean Fern for his analysis on Japanese claim of terra nullius. Or be patient until others comply with your demand.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are supporting Sean Fern's thesis. Why do I prove your insistence? You abandoned your responsibility. Then, I think that you agree the Prof.Park's thesis more credible than Sean Fern.--Opp2 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The process of the citation has no problem. If you want to insist that the term 'terra nullius' is wrong, then you must find what verify that 'directly'. Jtm71 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I already presented.

It is logically possible in intertnational law that Japan does additional action same as title by occupation.(日本が先占のような追加措置をとることは、近代国際法の観点からみると論理的に可能)

Prof.Park say that there is no contradiction between historical title and incorporation in 1905. Then I confirm again again and again, when did Japan say terra nullius(無主地)?--Opp2 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Opp2, original research and factual error?

I was so tempted to revert your edit, however other already did. Because your revert constitutes original research and factual error as you altering the description on attached Korean sources like Dokdomuseum.[6] You must provide your own source for the claim that Japan "reaffirm" their sovereignty. There is no such description on the source, rather the site says like the below.

Japan’s Meiji Government affirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory. This is a reliable site affiliated with Government of South Korea, so that you inserted your own interpretation or thought without source. According to the source, "Japan affirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory", not "Japan affirmed that the islands was Japanese territory. Please don't falsify information. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. Japanese government's official view on the 1905 inclusion was to "reaffirm" the posession of the islands. You can see it at the website of MOFA of Japan, which I think is the most credible source for the Japanese government's view on this subject. MOFA Incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture Read the first sentence of the above site. --Kamuichikap (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Then Opp2 or you have to insert a separate interpretation on the claim with the above inline citation without altering other's one based on the Korean source.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that MOFA of Japan's statement is more reliable than what other sources claim to be Japanese government's view. Anyway, I don't insist on changing it, if some of you feel against to the change. Regarding this issue, I want to ask one more question. The main article reads "Japan claims the incorporation was valid on grounds that Liancourt Rocks was terra nullius and that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published." I don't find the source for the latter half of the statement either, i.e., the part that says that Japan insists that the incorporation is valid because Korea did not dispute. If "Japan" means "Japanese government", I couldn't find any source for that. If "Japan" means "supporters of Japanese point of view", I could find this kind of claim. Probably, we need to change "Japan" to "Some Japanese people", or something like that. I want to know other editors' opinion on it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamuichikap (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to remind that the goal of the wikipedia is to offer a good encyclopedia to everyone, not to carry one's opinion. The description on the article need to be exact to avoid misinterpretation. Jtm71 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク" (...It seems that this island was not occupied by any countries...)

Japan incorporated this island as a 'terra nullius'(nobody's land). nobody tell that Japan's 1905 incorporate decision was not a 'terra nullius'

明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定, they was not says, 'reaffirmed' as a Japanese territory. Danceneveril (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese MOFA changed their history recently. hahaha... I'm banned this topic edit for a while. please anyone help change this inaccurate edit?[7]Danceneveril (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your ORIGINAL RESERCH. But I think that you cannot understand Japanese basic term.

"占領"：Display of realistic power(effective administration)

"先占"：Occupation(display of realistic power) of terra nullius(This becomes a title on international law)

The following are the first statement, claim and interpretation by Japanese government about incorporation in 1905.

Diplomatic letter from Japan to Korea in July 13, 1953

In order that a nation may establish its territorial right over any extenssion of land, it is required, according to the accepted idea of modern international law, to have an intention of making the land a part of its territory, and to exercise an effective administration thereupon.

She never said "terra nullius". Then Prof.Park judged that Japanese govermental claim is as a coexisting theory. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it in is not Japan but Korea that interpreted the claim of Japan first, as "terra nullius occupation" on the Diplomatic letter from Korea to Japan in February 10, 1954. Then "terra nullius theory" is not Japanese claim by Japanese government but Japanese claim created or interpreted by Korean government. Therefore, any thesis cannot present the source that Japan said "terra nullius".--Opp2 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you present your cites more clearly? And the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan" site has obviously tilted information favoring Japan. I dont think MOFA or any Korean government sites can be used in this article. Good friend100 (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The claim of Japanese Government was verified by Prof.Park in his thesis. The term of Japanese Government that he verified is "再確認(reaffirm)". And His conclusion is "It is logically possible." Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment to Good friend100. It seems to me that when presenting a country's point of view, the official websites must be trusted. If the information written there is biased or not is a different problem.--Kamuichikap (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard out of all the funnymen in wikipedia, your post is quoteworthy. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to cite biased websites. Both the South Korean and Japanese government sites contradict each other, how the hell are you supposed to write an article that makes sense if you use both? Good friend100 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What I am telling is that if you want to write something like "Japanese government says .....", what is written in Japanese government's website is the most reliable. (Do you think that quoting government's claim from other sources is more reliable? I don't understand that argument.) Most reliable because that Japanese government is actually writing that. And, you can make the article make sense by writing "Japanese government says......, on the other hand, Korean government says ...."--Kamuichikap (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is "Cyber Dokdo History Hall" a credible source?

Goodfriend says that "I dont think MOFA or any Korean government sites can be used in this article." North East Asian Hishory Funda[y]ion who is the owner of the Cyber Dokdo History Hall[8] was established by President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea. And, the South Korea government is investing. However Cyber Dokdo History Hall is cited now. Is Cyber Dokdo History Hall appropriate as a source?

高句麗研究財団を解体に追い込んだ北東アジア歴史財団の発足は、盧武鉉(ノ・ムヒョン)大統領のひと言から始まった。昨年3月7日、盧大統領は「歴史歪曲 (わいきょく)、独島(日本名竹島)問題について総合政策の樹立と研究のための政府出資機構を設立せよ」との指示を下した。あえて独島の名前を挙げていることからも分かるように、これは主に日本を狙った組織だと解釈された。(North East Asian History Funda[y]ion started from a Roh Moo-hyun's word. President Moo ordered, "Establish the government investment organization to oppose the misinterpretation about history and dokdo by Japan". Therefore, this Funda[y]ion was thought to be an organization that aimed at Japan.)

Cyber Dokdo Hiostory Hall is an advertising site of the Korea government by the Korea government for the Korea government. --Opp2 (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is as credible as that of MOFA. To me, MOFA is a perfect propaganda site. Don't raise a frivolous issue. If you want to take out the Dokdo museum citation, you have to take the MOFA as well.--Caspian blue (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Prominet point of Korean links in External Links section is they tell "truth", while JMOFA explains "issue" and admits existence of different POV. Current FOUR Korean links is somewhat redundant and as a whole they seems to hurt Neutral POV of the article. Can someone get down to one or two links? Lssrt (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

None except Japanese believe that MOFA's description as South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo as the "illegal occupation" is "neutral point of view. To Korean editors, it hurts a NPOV spirit. You would better not complain that you have not been WP:BOLD and fail to get a consensus on your claim unlike others eagerly do.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Limitation by "To Korean" is meaninigless assumption, when you think of "Neutral". As wikipedian, please calmly understand that "illegal occupation" is the difference of POV, which have to be described in both way.

For WP:BOLD, I cannot understand what you mean, because I never edited the article page. I only wrote the discussion page. If I miss something, could you explain more? Thanks.Lssrt (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just imitated your basic argument: according to your claim, MOFA is more a reliable source than Korean sources when it comes to Japanese interpretation on nobody's theory or whatever, so your argument sounds like "meaningless". What is a different POV? That site is regarded as a blatant propaganda in South Korea. You fail to persuade me and others that why your claim and the source are "reliable", "neutral" and "different" without any proof or logical explanation. As for the boldness, you can follow the link and read it. Here is not a learning place, so you have to seek help by yourself. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Still I cannot get your point. Then I ask you basic question. Do you admit existence of another POV/issue different from Korean? Should it be described in the article with balance? Lssrt (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

-_-;; Of course, there has another POV, so that's why "we" are here for arguing for a long time. However, what I don't understand you and Kamuchikap/Opp2 is that "yours" are valid/neutral/reliable and Korean sources are not. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I never said that Korean sources are not valid or neutral or reliable. I said Japanese government's site is valid for Japanese govnernment's opinion. In the same sense, I believe that Korean government's site is equally valid for Korean government's opinion. I didn't mean to say anything more or less than that. If you felt offended by my comments, I sincerely apologize.--Kamuichikap (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Please read my first comment above carefully. Or, would you explain how each four Korean links are important for the article? Aren't they redundant? Lssrt (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lssr, well, your argument sound as such. Apart from neutrality and reliability on the sites, your complain about "quantity" and "quality" is really meaningless. Inline citations are to back up arguments, so somebody who inserted them need for their claim. Thus, that is not redundancy. If you take out them from the article, the claimed content lose its validity, so I don't understand your logic. You must read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:CITE before complaining. NPOV is not 50 = 50 of citations or argument. If you want to "balance" the "redundancy", you have to be WP:BOLD and edit with reliable sources and get a consensus!--Caspian blue (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned about External links section, not citation. It is that Opp2 doubted crediblility of "Cyber Dokdo History Hall" and I basically support to remove it from External links section by another reason that there seems unbalance. Different from Opp2, I admit representative links inevibitably lack some neutrality/credibilty, because of the nature of the dispute.

As to your recommended WP:*, please comment according to "Achieving neutrality - Balance" in WP:NPOV. I don't insist complete 50:50 is necessarily required, but if having clearly unbalanced number of links, international reputability have to be examined.

For boldness, I still cannot get your point unfortunately. sorry. Lssrt (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposing a uniform Tri-partite Presentation Format for conveying each country's POV with greater accuracy and less controversy among contibuting editors

The chaotic state displayed in the two preceding sections ("terra nullius" and "Opp2: Original research and factual error?") is the natural result of several factors including (1) Deemphasised representation of historical documents declaring respective sovereignties (2) Ignorance of the literal contents of said documents partly due to the under-representation (3) Misreading of academic articles, and original research based on such misperception

As is the case in many popular discussions and debates, source documents are treated poorly, resulting in odd POV's that do not adequately reflect reality either historical or current. Hence I propose a uniform style of presenting each POV, wherever appropriate, as follows.

A. Primary Official Source: what each legally binding historical document says specifying the official governmental view at that time

B. Government's Current Claim if differing from above: what each government says now specifying in which public announcement or diplomatic document

C. Popular View if differing from either of above: what a non-governmental body such as the acedemia, NGO's, or a private author has published that has had a significant impact on public perception

Regarding the case of Liancourt Rocks being a terra nullius for instance, the format could be realised as follows:

Japan's position on legitimacy on grounds of terra nullius

(A-1) Japan's 1905 Cabinet decision of Jan 28 states: "There is no evidence to recognise that this unihabited island was ever occupied by a foreign country... recognising occupation has occurred in terms of international law as evidenced through relevant records that a person by the name of Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) has relocated to said island in 1903 (Meiji 36) and have since practiced fishing there..."

(A-2) The Japanese government statement on Feb 10, 1954, makes reference to the 1905 Feb 28 Cabinet decision, which sought legitimacy under international law that occupation of a previously unclaimed territory had occurred by 1905. While the 1954 diplomatic document only emphasises that "the intention of the State to acquire terriroy" was "confirmed" and "a public anouncement ... was made" which had "satisfied the requirement under international law", it does not explicitly state how legitimacy was obtained in the first place but only that it had been "confirmed". In the absence of a revision on a previous claim made in 1905, i.e. legitimacy based on prior occupation of a terra nullius, some scholars interpret this document as a continuation of the claim as follows.

"Japan in announcing prior occupation of territory ... the measure has satisfied the requsite conditions under international law."

The Japanese government switched from its previous claim of "Prior occupation of a terra nullius" to a claim of "inherent territory" not later that 1962. MOFA of Japan stated in a memoramdum of Jul 3, 1962, "The Japanese government has made clear the postition of its claim that Takeshima is Japan's inherent territory from olden times and is now reconfirming repeatedly that position."

(C.) Alternate claims

left blank in the absence of an alternate claim that is neither "Prior occupation" or "Inherent territory"

--- end of sample ---

Please share your opinions on this matter as the non-analytic nature of certain parts of the two previous talk sections are draining of our resources and collective efforts which really ought to be directed elsewhere. The sample paragraph offered here is a sample only which ought to be further worked on for brevity and conformity to wiki syntax and style. Lex (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese government stated on ""Feb 10, 1954"", "Japan['s] announcing [of] prior occupation of territory ... has satisfied the requsite conditions under international law."

...p. 55 via Kim, Myung-Ki...

I will present the original. I think that the truth is clarified. By the way, a lot of mistakes falsifications are found in the Kim Myung-Ki's thesis.--Opp2 (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC) basic terms and meanings

For instance, after WW2, Japan was occupied("占領") by Allied Power. However, there is no scholar who assumes that the Allied Power occupied terra nullius. It is necessary to prove that Japan used word "無主地(terra nullius) or "先占(prior occupation)" for terra nullius theory. Then Kim Myung-Ki says that Japan stated as follows. The Japanese government stated on ""Feb 10, 1954"", "Japan['s] announcing [of] prior occupation of territory ... has satisfied the requsite conditions under international law." However, Japan didn't say "prior occupation." [9][10] This is a reason why the prof. Park did not assume the insistence of Japanese Government to be terra nullius and contradiction. --Opp2 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you make your statement more tidy, so that we can understand what is your point? Besides, I don't read Kin Myung-Ki's thesis, however "thesis" is his own academic research and analysis, and interpretation , so your degrading him as "falsification" is beyond the line. Please don't continue such personal attack any more. That makes you unfocused but also your argument unpersuasive. Please don't do that. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Japan never say "terra nullius" or "prior occupation." The terra nullius theory was made or translated by the Korea government. Prof.Kim misinterpreted Japanese document. Then Japanese claim shoud be Japanese claim by Japanese government.(terra nullius theory is Japanese claim translated by the Korea government and Prof.Kim)--Opp2 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is his analysis by his academic background. If you're not an academic and there is no quote from reliable media or academic sources that his interpretation is "falsification", you're doing personal attack against him. Besides, would you make your argument tidy for readability? As you know, some of editors were blocked for their lengthy rambling here, so you would better have in mind of such precedent. Also the talk page is for communication, not making attacks. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

However, Prof.Kim cannot do even a simple quotation accurately. --Opp2 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, one needs to be careful when he talks about a living person. Jtm71 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Opp2, your Japanese governmental doc. [foot note no. 9] of Feb 10, 1954, is cut off at article 2. "Quotations from literature and reference to events are inaccurate and misleading, and" at page 44 of your source text which you have failed to identify. Please identify your source in full citation identifying bibliographical source. The previous fact combined with the additional fact that your [foot note no. 10] begins at page 55 with a suspicious lapse of 10 full pages raise serious doubts as to the motivation of your irregular behaviour whether it is not to deceive. Please give full document of Japanese Government's position of Feb 10. 1954 (昭和２９年（１９５４年）２月10日の日本政府の日本外務省の覚書) with clear bibliographical citation if you wish to continue in your line of refutation of Prof Kim. Myung-Ki's statement quoted herein, which I shall reproduce in full so as to prevent misperception by you and other editiors.

Prof. Kim, Myung-Ki, writes

III. Japan's claim to Tokdo by Prior occupation

A. Substance of Japan's claim

The Japanese government also claims that Japan has acquired Tokdo by prior occupation of a terra nullius. In the memorandum dated February 10, 1954, the Japanese government maintains that Japan acquired Tokdo by prior occupation and that one of the requisite conditions for occupation, i.e. the intention of the state to acquire the territory, was met in the following way:

"With regard to the requisite conditions for acquiring territory under modern international law, the State's intention to acquire territory is confirmed by a result of the decision made by the Cabinet Meeting on January 28, 1905 to add Tokto to Japanese territory, and the official announcement of the State's intention to acquire territory is made through a notification announced by Shimane prefecture on February 22, 1905. This was done in accordance with the practice taken by Japan in announcing prior occupation of territory, thus the above-mentioned measure has satisfied the requisite conditions under international law." (bold added by editor)

excerpt from pp. 365-366, Myung-Ki Kim, "A study on Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo", Korea Observer, Vol XXVIII, No. 3, Autumn 1997. Double quotation marks were added to prevent misunderstanding; nevertheless, the text referenced is a 96-word paraphrase by Prof. Kim of article 4, paragraphs 1 & 2, of The Japanese Government's View 2, Feb 10,1954, of 127 words (see the exact quotation below). As redundancy was removed, verbs of an historical event were set to the historical present, and the nature of the occupation of Liancourt Rocks by Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) according to academic consensus explicitly stated as prior occupation per a literal reading of the Cabinet Decision of Jan 28 from which relevant documents including the Shimane Notice of Feb 22 derive, it can hardly be said Prof. Kim falsified or misquoted at all. He says, in the excerpted portion of his article above, "Japanese government maintains ... one of the requisite conditions for occupation ... was met in the following way." Note he did not quote the diplomatic document but paraphrased it in summary fashion as he stated, "in the following way".) Lex (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Note Verbale of the Japanese Government dated February 10, 1954, Views of the Japanese Government in refutation of the position taken by the Korean Government in the Note Verbale of the Korean Mission in Japan, September 9, 1953, Concerning Territoriality over Takeshima" (The Japanese Government's Views 2), para. (sic. should be article) 4."

The text provided differs somewhat from the previous excerpt, most probably due to that it is a translation from Japanese or Korean source text.

"With regard to the requirements for acquisition of territory under international law, it should be mentioned that the intention of the State to acquire the territory was confirmed as a result of the decision made at a Cabinet meeting on January 28, 1905, for the adding of Takeshima to the territory of Japan and that on February 22, 1905, a public announcement of the intention of the State to acquire the territory was made by a notification issued by Shimane Prefectural Government."

"As this was in accordance with the practice followed by Japan at that time in announcing her occupancy of territory, the above measure taken for the public announcement of the intention of the State has satisfied the requirement under international law in this respect." Lex (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Originally, Japanese note in Feb 10, 1954 is English. Here[11] is all negotiation record between Japan and Korea.

竹島問題に関する調査研究 最終報告書(平成19年3月) (The Study on Takeshima problem, Final Report, March 2007)

First of all, you should withdraw impolite words against me after you read. Next, I demand to verify a present article again. The sea lion hunting is not described at all. It is an insistence of Korea that wants to emphasize the invasion (Though it is admitted even military activities on International Law). And please answer my above questions above. --Opp2 (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified certain problems, and have demonstrated that your alarm was not necessary had you read closely. I do not intend to continue on in your line of discussion in this section as you have been way off topic, way out of line. I have made this proposal to accommodate your grievance as well, yet you bite the hand that trys to feed. See you in a new section, while I must ponder how best to clean up this mess you have caused. Lex (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding (A)

[Note for Opp2: "No prior occupation by foreign country" LOGICAL AND "positive occupation offically recognised" === "Prior occupation" This is not original research as you claim; it is a result of applying 1-step deductive logic that falls outside the area of Original Research.]

However, he has made a mistake in a basic term. The Japanese term of Prior occupation is "先占". "先" means Prior and "占" means occupation.--Opp2 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Are not you misunderstanding that no occupation（無占領） means terra nullius（無主地）? "占" means occupation. "領" means teritory or zone. Then the meaning of "占領" is not "先占（Prior occupation）" but is effective control. You should look at a Japanese original well. "無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク" is not write as "先占(prior occupation)" but is "占領(occupation)".--Opp2 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding (A-1) source

??? Is this a evidence of terra nullius? The meaning of "無人島" is not "無主地(terra nullius)" but is a uninhabited island.--Opp2 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"隠岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五哩ニ在ル無人島ヲ竹島ト名ヶ島根県所属隠岐島司ノ所管ト為ス" in the title; the text therein reads "無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、... 依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領", which states "no prior occupation by foreign country" and "recognised Japanese occupation" giving "Prior Occupation of a Terra Nullius by Japan". Are you pretending to be dim of reason; I do not understand your irrational language behaviour? Lex (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mistake same above. "無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、... 依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上 占領" The meaning of 占領 is not 先占(Prior Occupation) but is occupation.--Opp2 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Opp2; you have clearly shown your lack of understanding. Either you do not understand high-school level logic, are unfamiliar with Internatinal Law, or do not know even the rudimentary meaning of kanji and English.

占領 in isolation is Occupation.

占領 in the absence of any foreign occupation before Jan 28, 1905 is not only the logical equivalent of 先占於他國 Occupation Prior to all other nations upto Jan 28, 1905, it is its very definition.

Opp2, seriously, I do not wish to hurt your feelings, but you need to go back to junior high-school if you do not see the logical identity of the clauses, phrases, and words as in broad daylight. Perhaps you should go to the nearest college where International Law is offered, make an appointment with a teaching assistant, and ask. Lex (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to know International Law and japanese very well. Then, please answer the following doubts. (question moved to a new section as it is off section topic as well as it is ill-defined) Lex (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For Opp2

Although you have not apologised for defaming Prof. Kim for an inaccurate reading on your part, I will, for your odd reading of text is less due to a lack of intelligence or lack of education, but more due to your political agenda that does not include historical accuracy but more bent on revisionism for the needs of the present. Hence I retract my claim that you need to return to junior high school. Yet please conduct yourself in a way that is more civil and intelligible, which will surely improve the quality of wiki experience for every one of us. I have revised clause (A-2) to accommodate your objection which has helped me to improve the sample article section. Although it was inconceivable that one could retract one's previous claim etched in stone in an unambiguous, legally binding document, I must accept that some will actually do this in reality, and that on a national level. I have experienced a genuine expansion of my horizon by this unique discussion with you. If I might ask, is your view shared by many other Takeshima activists if I may presume you to be one? Whatever the case, I must thank you for sharing the full set of diplomatic documents「竹島／独島問題」に関する日韓両国往復外交文書(1952〜76) by Prof. Fjuhara Yuji 福原裕二. Unfortunately it is locked rendering it unprintable; do you have access to a printable one as well? I would appreciate it if you could share it with us if it is not a great problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico (talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Kin Myung-Ki's Mistake

Prof. Kim's thesis is here.[12] Prof. Daijyudo pointed out that quotations of Kim's thesis are inaccurate and improper.
<ex>
Prof.Kim insisted that there was a notification obligation for prior occupation. And, he wrote that the William E. Hall supported the notification obligation. He is writing as follows.

As Westlake, William E. Hall also argues that “the Act of Berlin” is not only valid for the contracting parties, but should be considered as having a general binding power under international law. He says :

an agreement, made between all the state which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule

The notification obligation concerning only the Africa coast was provided by “The Act of Berlin”. The original of the Hall is here. [13][14] Prof.Kim ommited the word of "Nevertheless". And, he disregarded the footnote. Then he interpreted the description of the Hall as an opposite meaning. Also excluding this, a lot of the mistake falsification of quotations is found in his thesis. Is his thesis a credible source?--Opp2 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
<ex2>
Prof.Kim wrote that the M.F.Lindley supported the notification obligation. He is writing as follows.

M.F. Lindley viewed it proper to regard notification and effective occupation as the necessary conditions for occupation, before and after the signing of the 1885 Berlin Act. He states as follows:

According to views adopted by Britain, Germany, France and the United States, at the time of before and after the Berlin conference, there were no colonial states which took exception to the application of new rule of occupation, and it seems to be justified to say that all recent acquisition of territory obeys to this rule irrespective of whether it is the African coast or not.

Lindley says that notification and necessary conditions for effective occupation defined in the Act of Berlin do not apply only to "the African coasts" and the contracting parties to the Act, but also apply to all areas and all states. This is the same as Hall's view.

Prof.Kim quoted "CHAPTER: EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION" However, there is a chapter of "CHAPTER: NOTIFICATION" in Lindley's book. [15][16] Lindley was described clearly as "Notification not legally necessary". Also excluding this, a lot of the mistake falsification of quotations is found in his thesis. Is Prof.Kim a scholar?--Opp2 (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
And, he mistekes that Japan stated as a prior occupation. --Opp2 (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally redacting other's comment is regarded not good. However, why did you intentionally putting "falsification" with the strike in your title? Once you strike out on your own initial expression, putting it with the strike is unnecessary. People think that either you admit your attack against the professor or you unwillingly put by people's surpress you to do so in order to look yourself innocent. However, basically you firmly believe that his thesis is a falsification (without any academic proof, but by your own interpretation) and want to lead people thinks as such, which is a bad practice and not helpful to understand your statement. You seem to want a provocation to your opponent, and for that you were warn and topic banned long ago. If you keep doing such unhelpful behaviors, admins's intervention might be really necessary. "Is Prof.Kin a scholar?" This is also a continued persona attack. Read WP:BLP. Well, at least he is a professor, and you're not, so such derogatory comment is not good for your arguing. As you denounce the professor, you think that your statement could have a better point, but nope, the opposite result waiting for you. Besides, images from enjoyjapan are reliable? It is funny that you attack a reliable government site as unreliable, and then introduce your argument by such unreliable forum. The place is notorious for anti-Korean Japanese people. It is disappointing to see that your evidences are from there. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A man who cannot do even a simple quotation might see the illusion.--Opp2 (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Terra nullius theory was made or interapted by Korea government and Prof.Kim. Japanese claim shoud be a claim by Japanse government. And, if the terra nullius theory is described, I demand to describe as a Korean interpretation clearly.--Opp2 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what I have suggested you to make a separate section with inline citations. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Opp2's odd question to himself (moved from a previous section)

The condition of this island[17] correspond to "無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク(absence of any foreign occupation)." Because there are no national flag, no person, no facility and no signs which shows the country. In this island, there is no artificial one at all.

Q1: Do you think that this island is terra nullius?

Q2: Do you think that this island is effective occupied by any country?

Q3: If Japan sends military forces to this island, and the national flag hangs, does it become a Prior occupation?

The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right. If the effectiveness has above all been insisted on in regard to occupation, this is because the question rarely arises in connection with territories in which there is already an established order of things.

This is a part of the judicial precedent of Palmas. M. Huber said that two occupations are necessary.

Q4:What is the difference between the occupation for acquisition and the occupation for the maintenance of the right?

Hi, Opp2. As for Q's 1-3, please start a new section, as this section has been mutilated beyond recognition; thank you. O, and when you do, please state the time frame such as 1872, 1879, or 1880 if you can, as your questions 1-3 are meaningless the way they are because the legal interpretation are totally based on the 5 W's and the 1 H.

As for Q 4, I think it is a very good question that we should definitely take up, but, like I said, in a new section.

I am infuriated in that I have posed a constructive suggestion, and have not got the response because now it has become unreadable mostly due to your hacking up of my original document.

I am rightfully annoyed at your sabotaging behaviour, and am not willing to continue in this line of debate in my section. I shall do a major clean-up of it, while preserving all comments consolidated at the end of my proposition if you do not mind. I might lose some comment or some portion of it due to an inadverdant error, but I shall not be responsible due to the disruptive behaviour that you have displayed. Lex (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Q1-3 is very important for this section, because it shows the recognition or definition of your "占領". I understood that you cannot understand the meaning of "占領". The meaning of "占領" is physical and effective occupation by miritaly force or administrative agency on the island. Therefore, 中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住(Nakai migrated to Takeshima) was judged as "占領". This island[18] is not terra nullisu(Japanese island) but is "無占領". Then Japan can "占領(physical and effective occupation)" this island tomorow by military forces but the Japanese "占領" action doesnot mean the island is tarra nullius. The logic of your original research has collapsed. --Opp2 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have ho choice to but to excercise maximum civiliity by notifying the following policy I shall enforce henceforth if it was not clear for the dense of reason: no further resposnse is to be expected to an unintelligent, illogical, non sequitur remark. Unclear language likewise. Irrelevent message is to be removed from section at my disposal. Cooperation expectect of Opp2, as you have been served ample notice in multiplicity. Lex (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please present the thesis by scholar which say that the document of Japanese Cabinet Decision is the evidence of terra nullius. Prof. Park is compared with the other Japanese prior cases. However, he did not conclude that it was terra nullius. Even Prof.Kim doesn't say such a thing. Your logic becomes an original search if you cannot. I feel your commment is unintelligent about international law.--Opp2 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting a new subsection in International disputes: 1904 Korea-Japan Protoccol

It has come to my attention the existence of a legally binding international treaty between Korea and Japan that affects the status of Liancourt Rocks at the time of the Japanese Cabinet decision of Jan 28, 1905: the Japan-Korea Protocol of 1904 which stipulates as follows

"Article 3: The Imperial Government of Japan definitely guarantees the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire." (emphasis added by contributor)

The Japanese Cabinet decision to "incorporate Liancourt Rocks" is in direct conflict with Article 3 of this protocol, and hence is null and void. This conclusion receives support by at least two scholars of international law and Japanese history: Francis Rey of France and Yamabe Gentaro of Japan. (links and citations pending) Lex (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

??? Korea is insisting that Japan incorporated as terra null. Japan is insisting that Japan incorporated for reconfirm. It doesn't contradict the insistence of both parties. Because both insistences are based on the theory that the Korean title of international law did not establish. Prof. Park who is an international scholar say that logicaly possible.--Opp2 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Observing the non-standard, and obviously revisionist, reading of the Jan 28, 1904, decision of the Japanese Cabinet as amply shown by Opp2's testimony, a seperate subsection independent of the Shimane notice is called for. It is close to impossible to read the Cabinet decision of Jan 28 except as "incorporation of a terra nullius", and more than a handful of Japanese scholars also concur to this standard reading, Yamabe Gentaro 山邊健太郞, Kajimura Hideki 梶村秀樹, Naito Seichu 內藤正中, and Hori Kazuo 堀和生. Yet as the Japanese government found it difficult to refute the overwhelming historical evidence from both Korea and Japan showing otherwise, and on the other hand found it rather easier to show recent evidence of "effective control" since the Cabinet decision, this seems to be on the forefront of the Japanese claim to Liancourt Rocks. This is definitely not neutral POV, as other evidence is being suppressed. Hence the need to return to the original text that lies at the heart of the debate. Lex (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. Do you think that they are scholars of International Law? Naito and Hori's major is history of economics. Naito is declaring that he doesn't know International Law. Kajimura's major is Korean history. Yamabe's major is Korean history. Please present the thesis by scholar of internatinal law which say that the document of Japanese Cabinet Decision is the evidence of terra nullius. Prof. Park is compared with the other Japanese prior cases. However, he did not conclude that it was terra nullius. Even Prof.Kim doesn't say such a thing. Your logic becomes an original research if you cannot.--Opp2 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss anything with someone who reads into everything. You really need to read historical text as is, not by infusing your derivative wishes into it. That does not even amount to interpretation, but becomes pure distortion. If you want a bibliography, such I shall provide. Please dig up some of the sample articles to the effect that everyone can share their full contents, as is only fitting for a wiki editorial team. Nevertheless, I must remind you there is little to interpret. A straightforward reading of the documents bearing on the 1905 Cabinet Decision of Jan 28, 1905, is quite illuminating in itself. Of course, scholarly analysis is always helpful to guide our reasons to subtle nooks and crannies. Yet one must abstain from indulging in subtle delicacies only as it is said, "The Master should always walk the straight path." 君子大路行

OH!! Did you read these documents? I also read except Ohira and Makita. You would have noticed the following problems if you read.

International Law didnot apply before opening the country to the Europian countries.(The country that doesn't receive the Europian culture and rules becomes terra nullius. This is a theory of the colonization for Europian countries and international law.)

However, ICJ admitted the native tribes as a one kind of the subject of International Law in the Western Sahara recommendation.

International Law came to demand the effective control for the continuance of the right.

Famous international law scholar Oppenheim considered uninhabited land to be terra nullius.(Neither a present scholar nor the judicial precedent support this）

Which does scholar say that the document of Japanese Cabinet Decision is the evidence of terra nullius? You never present till now. I should say that it is your original reserch. The interpretation is very difficult and is different in each scholar for above problems of international law. It is not a problem that you can judge easily.(Off course I can't too.) --Opp2 (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You should see your list which was copied from Shimane's report. The terms of not the "占領" but the "先占" is used. It was proven that the Japanese terms of pre-occupation(occupation of terra nullisu) is "先占" and your logic about "占領" is original reserch.--Opp2 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Helllo, Sennen goroshi, Your revised setence sounds fine with the passive construction; the verb comprise is a rather versatilve word in the transitive sense of the verb, which allows both voices, the active and the passive. Allow me to convey some natural constructions from the Random House Uabridged below.

1. "The United States of America comprises 50 states." : in the sense of "to include", "to consist of"; transitive verb; active voice; usage since 15th century

2. "Fifty states comprise the United States of America." : in the sense of "to form or constitute"; transitive verb; active voice; since late 18th century

3. "The United States of America is comprised of 50 states" : in the sense of"to consist of, be composed of"; transitive verb; passive voice; since late 19th century

Nevertheless, I am a bit troubled by the treatment of the proper noun Liancourt Rocks as a grammatical plural when what is referred to is one grammatical entity with a singular grammatical number as can be seen in similar examples;

"The United States has become a superpower since it prevailed over the Axis Powers; English has firmly established itself as a world language replacing French as a language of international relations."

"The Philippines is where I was born."

"The Himalayas is the mountain range of which Mt. Everest has some of the highest peaks."

Some corrections and reverts occurred as a result of a brief grammatical discussion in my talk page. Contibuting comments from Future Perfect at Sunrise were reflected as individual reverts in the article text. Lex (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When did Korea gain physical control of the Liancourt Rocks?

I understand that sometime after WWII, South Korea took physical control of the Liancourt Rocks. When did this happen, and how? I'm amazed that there's no mention of it in the article. Does anyone know the answer? I can't even find an answer on Google.Worldruler20 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yours is a very good question that deserves more attention. A good response to it, however, is hindered by both the definition of 'physical control' and conflicting evidence.

1. S Korean Police: One prominent piece of evidence of effective physical control over Liancourt Rocks and its waters is the incident of July 12, 1953, when a South Korea police gunned Patrol boat of the Japanese Coast Guard for breaching the Peace Line of President Syngman Rhee (declard January 18, 1952) and entering Liancourt Rocks.

2. Regional Militia: participants of the civilian defense organisation well known in S Korea as Dokdo ui'yong subidae (독도의용수비대 獨島義勇守備隊) have variously claimed dates of Apr 20, 1953, Apr 27, 1953, Apr 20, 1954, and May (date unclear), 1954. The confusion is possibly due to A. lapse of memory on Mr. Hong's part, the commamder of the militia, who could have confused earlier, personal events before the official stationing of the defense party with later events and B. the evolving nature of a civilian-led organistaion with later participants, who are more likely to survive 'till recent times to give a testimony, not having first-hand knowledge of the earlier events denying they have any recollection of them because they were not there, and C. poor record keeping combined with little critical study either conducted or published.

It can be said with certainty that Liancourt Rocks was being physically controlled by S Korea no later than July 12, 1953 even if we disregard the rather insecure claims from the Militia.

Nevertheless, considering the nature of the Peace line of Jan 18, 1952, defining exclusive limits at 12 miles off the coast of Liancourt Rocks and its enforcement as seen in the Dai Ichi Daihoumaru Ship Incident (第一大邦丸事件 [Dai Ichi Daihoumaru jiken] of February 4, 1952, it could also be argued that the S Korean Police and the Coast Guard combined had effective control of the Liancourt Rocks with the declaration of the Peace Line in early 1952, three month's before the MacArthur line went out (Apr 25, 1952) and the US-Japanese Peace Treaty came into effect (Apr 28, 1952). Lex (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Block warning

Krtek2125 (talk·contribs) and Clownface (talk·contribs), please remember that this article is still under a strict zero tolerance policy against edit warring. All reverts except those of obvious vandalism or extremely blatant tendentiousness must be discussed in advance, with ample time allowed for discussion before the revert. I could have blocked you both at this point. Just a reminder instead. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I put back the link to the external message board before seeing the warning. My apolgies. The link I have added has been added to North Gyoengsan's Cyber-Dokdo page. This website reflects the position of the Korean government as is added as an external link. Tell Krtek to stop deleting it without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the link and why?

I added the external link above and it was removed, twice without reason by KRTEK. Why? The website is linked to Korea's Cyber Dokdo Homepage and thus representative of the Korean governments position on the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OPP2 removal of External Links

Please see [19]. This appears on the face of it to breach the terms of engagement as this is an undiscussed removal of a disputed link. SpartazHumbug! 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a personal site which are not verified.--Opp2 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opp2 the site is linked to the Korean government's Cyber Dokdo Page. Additionally dokdo-takeshima.com is already cited for part of wiki's article. See citation #47 below. Please don't be disruptive. Clownface (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This site[20] becomes effective too according to your logic. Because this site is linked from Shimane Prefecture.[21] Do you agree with the addition of this site?--Opp2 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opp as I've mentioned, I don't know why you are upset, dokdo-takeshima.com has been externally linked by #47 for a long time.

The link has just been moved to the top. The Shimane Prefecture website obviously does not endorse the views of all the websites linked on her page some of them are Korean. Dokdo-Takeshima.com is endorsed by Gyeongsan Province. The Shimane Prefecture page you linked is just a link database and the other website you linked to is not even a website, it's just a blog. Again don't be so disruptive.Clownface (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Funasugi quotes Dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com in his thesis[22]. Then Dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com is a site admitted more academically than Dokdo-Takeshima.com which linked by the Korean government.--Opp2 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opp2 you are being silly. If Professor Funasugi wants to put his reputation on the line by citing blogs that's his prerogative and own his personal opinion. Blogs are not websites

Blogs that post articles written by anonymous posters on a forum that doesn't even provide basic data such as WHOIS information have no more credibility than those who scrawl on a bathroom wall. Clownface (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Personal websites and blogs are same condition under wikipedia rule. Moreover contributors of dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com is described. One person is a real name, and he is more famous than Steave. Because his article is published in the Korean and Japanese newspaper.--Opp2 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opp2 the posters on the "blog" you describe are anonymous. Blogs are out, as the list mentions. Unless you consider whoever "Pacifist" and "Kaneganese" are as their real name which of course is not true. Of the three that people that post data on the blog you are referring to, two are phantom posters Opp2. This means at least 66% of the data is from anonymous ghost writers. Writing that has doubt about who authored it, is not acceptable. Read the rules.

As mentioned dokdo-takeshima.com represents the position of the Korean government hence it is linked to North Gyeongsan Provinces website. Obviously if the provincial government considers the dokdo-takeshima.com of high enough standard to be affiliated with their website, they feel it has credibility.

You say the information on dokdo-takeshima.com is contentious. The whole subject of Dokdo Takeshima is "contentious".

Wikipedia has been citing dokdo-takeshima for months now and you haven't said a word. What's the sudden sense of urgency Opp2? Have you found a new bone of contention on wiki to harass posters about? Please stop being disruptive.Clownface (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because this theme is contentious, the quotation of a self-published site should be careful. "dokdo-takeshima.com" is completely defaulting. It is necessary to correct the mistake. --Opp2 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opp2, you have to understand just you don't agree with some data doesn't make something "contentious" if this were the case I'd request every link from Japan's government be removed. We should "be careful" when we quote self-publlished material but you have to remember all data was at one point published by someone. Whether you like it or not, the website in question is used by the Korean provincial government as an expression of their stance on the Dokdo issue and thus is relevent and equally admissable as any published writing.

Please find a more positive way to contribute to wikipedia instead of trying to suppress and censor data you feel damages Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks. The link has been here for some time. Leave it alone.Clownface (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com" is used by the Shimane prefecture.[23]当サイトからもリンクしている Dokdo-or-Takeshima? において、Web竹島問題研究所掲載の記事などが随時翻訳されていますので、ご覧いただきたいと思います。(The article of our laboratory etc. is translated on the "Dokdo-or-Takeshima?", and refer, please.) And you admitted your site to violate the rule of wikipedia WP:SPS. --Opp2 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys - chill please. Discuss the link not the editors. Topic bans for both Clownface and Opp2 have been discussed before and if I see much more of this I may well consider enforcing them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see discussion not arguing between you two. SpartazHumbug! 08:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it will be a fruitless argument. I want you to judge it.--Opp2 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the external link again and it was ripped down. This has been discussed and consented upon. I'm going to put it up again. This site is linked and part of Gyeongsanbukdo's Cyber Dokdo Page. Please do not remove again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is dokdo-takeshima.com part of Gyeongsanbukdo's Cyber Dokdo Page? If so, why do we need this external link? We already have an external link to the top page of Cyber Dokdo. I believe that the author of dokdo-takeshima.com is an American high school teacher and not a detachment of Cyber Dokdo.--Krtek2125 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

dokdo-takeshima.com is linked to North Gyeonsan Province webpage so obviously the data is concurs with the Korean Government's side of the dispute. There is plenty of data and maps on the site that the Korean Provincial Government's English page does not have, so it could be helpful. From what I understand much of the data is gathered and translated on behalf of the Korean government.

As I've mentioned the page has already been linked and cited for some time and there hasn't been a problem. Clownface (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

About the subpart of 1920 Provisional Government

Is this important to set up an independent part ? Then I have three questions.

Which country approved Provisional Government as a government according to international law ? (ref. US case[24])

Was Yi's statement transmitted to another country?

Please teach the international law scholar's evaluation about his statement.

Unfortunately, I have not read the international law scholar evaluating about Yi's statement.--Opp2 (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Approve? Are you sure that is the right word, or are you just trying to be funny? Legitimacy, or Mandate if you will, derives from the will of the people to autonomous government. This modern tenet of origin of state authority could be something that some closet-case Tenno worshipers or the ultra right fascist nationionalist might find difficult to comprehend. The Korean Provisional Government in exile was founded as a result of the proclamation of independence, March 1, 1919, on the occasion of the late Emperor Gojong's funeral who was rumoured to have been poisoned by the Tenno's agent in Seoul. The ancient regime had died, and a new nation was born. Thus the Government in exile had all the legitimacy it needed, except the Japanese agents who usurped power, the people, and the territory; a blatant violation of the 1904 Protocol and the 1905 Agreement to name just two. Words can come cheap, so why are you here if you do not intend to keep the trust? Lex (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Please teach the international law scholar's evaluation concerning his statement. This article is not your own.--Opp2 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I relayed a simple historical event in a simple translation into English; interpretation in terms of international law is not my job here. I do not offer free legal advice. Please further your legal queries to the appropriate authorities in whom you entrust your judicial judgements. Lex (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lexico's most recent edit seems to have inserted large passages of Wikipedia talk page discussion into a footnote in article space. Can I please ask you not to do that. Wikipedia discussion is not something that should be documented in article space; it is, in fact, the very paradigm of "original research". How we here "interpret" a given source should be of no concern; in fact, if a source is in need of any non-trivial "interpretation" at all and that interpretation is not provided by independent, reliable secondary sources, the primary source should not be used at all. In Lexico's additions, it is often difficult to judge how much of the material presented is in fact original research, since the text quite often makes interpretative statements about primary sources and then quotes only those primary sources, not a secondary source that interprets them. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose to revert to a simple old version. --Opp2 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, Future Perfect at Sunrise, with all due respect, I provide the following which are considered acceptable in wikipedia and Not Original Research.

P1: translations when relevant information is not in English

P2: summaries of sizeable amount of texts

P3: specific points that have been made

P4: corrections regarding matters of historical accuracy, grammar and style, so as to minimise confusion for readers, such as myself, who intend to find accurate information.

If you consider my summaries as overly long, I shall cut down in quantity. That foot note will be managed to fit encyclopedia standards, but that is a summary, which you do not see as one. Fine, I shall take care of it. On the other hand, I would appreciate it if you got to moderating such unruly behaviour as Opp2 has demonstrated e.g. inserting foot note material into the text proper, throwing the article section out of context, and thus rendering it illegible. Thank you. Lex (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Case with his accurate translation.

"The County seat is at Taehadong (台霞洞), with islands of Jukdo (竹島) and Sokdo (石島). [The Island of Uldo] measures sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south with a circumference of 200 ri in total."

The subject is omitted in the original. When the subject is omitted, subjects of the previous sentences are succeeded in many cases. But he insert "[The Island of Uldo]" and delete Japanese interpritation from the article though it was described as Japanese claim. He tries to conceal this record because of fatal to the Korean claim. This is his accurate translation. --Opp2 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Opp2: What is a shot-down blog page claim on a 1906 report doing in the text proper of a 1900 section?

RE: "The Korean Interior Ministry reported that islands under the authority of Uldo County are Jukdo and "Sokdo", and that it was sixty ri (24km) from east to west and forty ri(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ri (80km) on 1906 July."

"The Resident-General sent an official letter to the Interior Ministry asking it to clarify what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, which is under the administration of Samcheok County in Gangwon Province, and the year and month the county office was established. The response was that the post of Ulleungdo Administrator was established on May 20, 1898, and then on October 25, 1900, the government decided to post a county magistrate with the county office being at Daehadong (台霞洞). It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Sokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri."

Opp2: If you want to keep the report in the article and not in the foot notes, start a new section. If you would rather keep the report in the 1900 section, move it to the foot notes, as it is blatantly misleading as well. Not stating the time of the report could be considered intentional.

Yet I must remind you that claim and report have ended in a disgrace to the debate. With all the studies and translation work as Mr Sugino boasts, he can't handle a simple compound sentence? I doubt it was an innocent mistake. Is it only me who suspects it was rather intentional?

Dr Yu's article points out Sugino's obvious misreading of a coordinating conjunctional verb suffix '-오' in Korean (Hwangsoeng Shinmun, '郡廳은台霞洞에在하고該郡所管島 는竹島石島오東西가六十里오南北이四十里니合이二百餘里라고하얏다어라') dictates that the following predicate phrase have its own subject or topic word, which is left unstated in the 1906 article (Yu, pp. 5-6). The possibilities include Ulleung County as Sugino prefers, and Ulleung Is as Resident-General requested. Actually it is neither; the unstated topic word is Uldo Is as Ulleung Is had been renamed to Uldo Is on Oct 25, 1900 (Official Gazette, Oct 27, 1900). The Resident-General's office was either feigning ignorance of the 1900 Imperial Decree or blatantly ignoring it as all embassies and cosular offices of foreign states were served all editions of the Official Gazette published by the Korean Government in 1900. Sugino not only fails to note this irregularity in the ignorance demonstrated by the Resident General's office, but aggarates the misunderstanding by mistranslating it into a subordinating conjunctional suffix -で、 in Japanese (Sugino, '郡廳は台霞洞に置き、該郡所管島 はチュク島と石島で、東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので、合せて二百余里だという') to the effect of creating a conflict that does not exist in the original text in question. This fact alone effectively takes away the essence of Sugino's thesis.

You should read well. The tranceration didnot made by Mr. Sugino but Mr. Gerry who can read Korean very well and live Korea for a long time. Then please propose your tranceration.--Opp2 (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Read what? You didn't provide anything to read up on except the mistranslation and an unidentified image. Please point to Mr Gerry Bever's web publication where he first made the date-stamped claim; this is only proper and expected as you know very well. Lex (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Shimojyo cannot translate what is not in the original: his reference to "欝島郡の管轄範囲を" is neither supported by the Korean text nor the Japanese Resident-General's query, which never asked the physical limits of "the county" jurisdiction. In fact, it is not even clear which county the Resident-General is talking about; it only mentions Samchok County and never mentions Uldo County. Furthermore, he is copying Sugino's insertion of the topic word, which has been effectively refuted as groundless by Dr. Yu. Although these facts might simply suggest both Sugino's and Shimojo's fluency in written, historical Korean as inadequate for research purposes, they might also mean that Shimojo's methods are less rigourous than what might be expected in more exacting scholarly work, rendering his academic work unreliable, and his credibility lacking. Lex (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How about follows.

Article:When Korean Interior Ministry was asked islands which belonged to Ulleungdo, she answered on 1906 July, "[...]It said the islands under the authority of the said county(Uldo County) were Jukdo and Sokdo . It was sixty(24km) ri from east to west and forty ri(16km) from north to south for a total of (80km)".

note:The Resident-General sent an official letter to the Interior Ministry asking it to clarify what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, which is under the administration of Samcheok County in Gangwon Province, and the year and month the county office was established. The response was that the post of Ulleungdo Administrator was established on May 20, 1898, and then on October 25, 1900, the government decided to post a county magistrate with the county office being at Daehadong (台霞洞). It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Sokdo (石島). It was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri.

Because the previous sentences doesn't make Ulleungdo as a subject, I think that Yu's interpretation is difficult.--Opp2 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And the current part is appropriate for this document because both of Mr. Yu[26] and Prof. Shimojo is using this document for the interpretation of Sokdo of Korean Imperial Decree No. 41.--Opp2 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And the sentence of "Ulleungdo Administrator was established on May 20, 1898, and then on October 25, 1900" is very interesting. These actions are described as "占領" or "占有" in Japanese. Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Sokdo was terra nullius till 1898 according to Korean logic. It contradicts the Korean claim that Sokdo(Dokdo?) was a Korean territory for a long time. --Opp2 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1900 Decree and the 1905 Decision are on totally different levels; Korea never said 'incorporation' as all the savage lands and waters had long been conquered as far as they were concerned. Thus the decree was simply a reorganisation of administrative boundaries and hierarchies, whereas the 1905 Decision was a cheap copy of European domination over the New World, which lead to contradictions and an infinitely recurring falsification to cover up missing logic; it will never work as logic transcends perception and even the ravaging forces of time. One reporter who did a tour of Japan to investigate the New History Group about a decade ago observed the lack of morale, morality, and public leadership advised, "Relearn your Confucianism!" I say there is nothing to relearn, as it had never taken root in the first place. Philosophy is what is lacking, the power of pure reason that has a universal appeal to all mankind, the only way to ascend to a higher level of existence instead of mere subsistence that worms do very well. Lex (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Readability problem in Section: Post World War II era

A lot of work has been invested not to miss any major document in this very, very confusing, uncoordinated, unprincipled period due to unilateral swaying of US policy towards Japan, and none of it is to be missed or distorted either. Hence the great difficulty in dealing with such complex jungle of claims and notices, and stretching interpretations. My point is, does anyone find this section extremely difficult to read? Does the sheer bulk of material, points of views, interests, and strategic assessments that constantly shift, realign, and eventually contradict themselves give you a head spin and an eye-sore? Someone familiar with the material, please put in some paragraphing so the form of presenting material does not bog down what could otherwise be a very intriguing period. How about 3~4 paragraphs along the axis of US' State Department policy towards Japan combined with the other variable of US Forces engaging with DPRK-PRC forces in Korea? In addition, the bombing incidents over Liancourt Rocks, of which 1948's and 1952's were most lethal, should also have a place in this article. What are the opinions of my fellow wikipedians on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC) <priority>

Diplomatic letter>Internal documents(The diplomatic letter has vigor)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs(Department of State)> embassy> army (The decision of the policy of the country is government ministries, The army cannot represent the country if they donot have Full powers.)

answer>questionnaire

Please select the source based on common sense and international law.--Opp2 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tse tse, you are off topic again, Opp2!

No matter, however, as I consider you NOT my fellow.

Meanwhile, I wish you a very Merry August 15!

Be good now, while I go and celebrate the defeat of the Tenno. tata Lex (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not helping the situation by making snide remarks toward other editors. Also, I'm not sure if you were trying to sound neutral, but if you were, this comment gave you away: "unprincipled period due to unilateral swaying of US policy towards Japan, and none of it is to be missed or distorted either." Honestly, things like this are why this article has become a lost cause. People can't get off their nationalist high horses to make a neutral, informative article.Worldruler20 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For your information, and on a less than serious remark of yours on what you confidently pointed out as supposedly "giving me away", see the following for details of US involvement in Liancourt Rocks to see for yourself if it seems less unilateral than nationalist, and do tell what consistency you find as principled and well-coordinated. As for me wanting to feign neutrality, I am not very interested in either the petty it's-all-mine dialectic which seems to be, from your bold characterisation, the farthest reach of your imaginative faculty, or the politically correct yet false pretense of equal representation of true statements and false statements alike. I shall be generous in saying it was an irregular case of presumptuousness, not an innate character fault.

The US POV as reflected in its 6th draft Dec 29, 1949 on, as opposed to the consistent principle of the Allied Nations Nov 27, 1943 (Cairo Declaration) to Dec 28, 1949 (pre-6th draft of Peace Treaty), genuinely complicates the picture, which the US, since facing objections from the UK, Austalia, and New Zealand regarding the 6th US-draft, and since realising Liancourt Rocks was no small matter that can be swayed in favour of US interests, it was forced to back out from the brief policy to gain greater control over Liancourt Rocks for reasons such as "security considerations ... render[ing] the provision of weather and radar stations on these islands a matter of interest to the United States" (Nov 14, 1949, W. J. Sebald).

If you can call that consistent, principled and multilateral, then you are absolutely correct in implicating me for losing NPOV in my characterisation of the US stance as chaotic, unilateral and partisan since the 6th draft of the Peace Treaty. If "US interests in weather forecasting and radar surveillence" and "US interests in establishing a bombing range" are not unilateral considerations, I do not know what is.

As a civilised nation, as well as a member state of the Allied Nations, the US should have clearly been aware that such action could amount to leasing stolen property after (assisting post-war Japan in its attempt to) appropriate foreign territory. US pretensions, after the Japanese ones, that Liancourt Rocks was either a nameless terra nullius on the Korean side or a legitimate Japanese territory that need not be returned as other territories returned to their original owners since they were taken by Imperial Japan since Jan 1, 1894, could not sanction the US any legitimate use thereof as the pretensions lacked historical support verifiable by examination of veritable sources. As a result, you will face the insurmountable concensus of other member states with which the 1949-1951 US position came into conflict as a matter of course. Lex (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On topic, any positive suggestions on improving the clarity of the section regardless of POV? All this finger pointing is beginning to turn distasteful, as is an uninformed remark. An improved format need not be biased; a discussion of one need not be either. Whither, fellow wikipedians? Lex (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

wrong reference

Japan claims that there is no evidence to identify the island "Sokdo" as Liancourt Rocks, [28] [29] and that there is no record that proves the effective occupation by Korea before Japanese Cabinet decision of Jan 28, 1905. [30]

this is wrong. this reference is not says, there is no record that proves the effective occupation by Korea before Japanese Cabinet decision. this document "claim" that korea find more evidence. but this document is not mean, "korea have not effective occupation". there is no sentence that "korea have not evidence that effective occupation." this document is not mean "there is no record that proves the effective occupation by Korea before Japanese Cabinet decision" in this document. this is wrong reference. i remove it. Masonfamily (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your judgement that Opp2's claim in the article text in question and Prof Park, Ki Kap's thesis (s)he quotes as source is in error, in a classical case of a Non Sequitur. The following is the full paragraph from which Opp2 claims to find support:

As has been reviewed in the light of international territorial dispute cases, I believe the following measure is called for: there is the necessity to uncover historical evidence of continuous, peaceful excercise of state authority during the Joson-Korean Empire's era in refutation of Japan's claim that Liancourt Rocks had been a terra nullius at the time of its incorporation in 1905. In the rare case that the two governments of Korea and Japan some day agree to present the case before an international court of law, Korea would need evidence to rule Japan's 1905 incorporation as illegal with evidence that Liancourt Rocks had clearly been under a pre-exiting continuous, peaceful display of authority by our government before that time.

For Thinoo on Naming Lameness: Apples and Oranges, Oranges and Apples

Thinhoo, although I could understand you might feel strongly about in what order the two countries appear, it is inappropriate to revise how the Japanese call it in their country; that is not scientific. While Koreans have every right to call it 한일의정서, Han'il uijongso, and 韓日議定書, so do the Japanese in saying 日韓議定書, and Nikkan Giteisho. The reason why I put both forms in parenthetical notes was to give balance by showing both forms preferred by respective countrymen, countrywomen, and countrychildren; or should I have said, countrywomen, countrymen, and countrychildren? Chill it, please. Lex (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinoo, renaming an English name for the same geogrphical landscape will solve nothing, help little. Although Korean names for the sea might have had initial favor in early travelogues and maps, the Japanese designation has gained popularity over time due to its greater impact on world history, or at least in the minds of English speakers since the opening of Japanese ports to Commodore Perry. Korea had lagged behind in its modernisation efforts, which was admirably planned, but eventually failed. If the failure in Korea's attempt is disappointing, renaming Sea of Japan to Sea of Korea or the Eastern Sea should serve little purpose. It should rather serve better purpose as a reminder to modern Koreans to never to lose sight to current tasks as the elite of the late Joson and Korean Empire have demonstrated, not to engage in backward naming wars. Please contrubte in a positive manner; there's a lot of work to do, and what you have done is intellectually lazy, irresponsible, and self-defeating. Why not visit the local libraries and try to read some serious articles to see if you can find some relevant material that might help everyone understand the issue better? Lex (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1906 Verbal Notification of Incorporation and Korean Response

"On that date, a party of 44 officials from Shimane Prefecture visited Ulleungdo. The Japanese officials, including Kanda Yoshitaro, traveled to Ulleungdo by way of Dokdo, and informed Sim Heung-taek, then Magistrate of Ulleungdo, that Dokdo had been incorporated into Japan."

I think dokdo should be changed to the neutral term of Liancourt Rocks here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.4.45 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, at least in part, which, although in line with the general idea of using the neutral toponym, is against UN conventions which stipultate that a soverign territory is to be called by how it is designated by its sovereign people, and is not supported by the conventions of written English, either. Using double quotation marks that look like "" nesting the text conveyed in translation are subject to the conventional rules of English punctuation as follows.

"It is generally considered incorrect to use quotation marks for paraphrased speech where they may give the impression that the paraphrasing represents the actual words used." -- from Wikipedia article on Quotation mark at

Nevertheless, if you wish to stick with the current wikipedian majority view, I suggest taking the indirect quotation. Feel free to make the appropriate amendment; the issue of the name of Dokdo or Doksom itself can be either noted in a foot note or taken up in a separte section if that is deemed necessary or helpful for ellucidating the section topic in question.